DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on June 17, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 4 and 10-13 were amended. Claims 2-3, 5 and 8-9 were canceled. No claim was added. Claims 19-23 were withdrawn. The support of the amendments are found in at least Fig. 1-6.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued January 21, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 12, the phrase “the first and second IR radiation sources” should be corrected to “the one or more first IR radiation sources and the one or more second IR radiation sources”.
Regarding claim 1, line 5, the phrase “one or more first IR radiation sources” should be corrected to “one or more first infrared (IR) radiation sources”.
Regarding claim 1, line 6, the phrase “one or more second IR radiation sources” should be corrected to “one or more second infrared (IR) radiation sources””.
Regarding claim 4, lines 1-2, the phrase “the first IR radiation sources” should be corrected to “the one or more first IR radiation sources”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 13, 16, 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang1 (KR20100120420) in view of Hwang2 (KR20080095127) and Kamikawa (CN102277557).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang1 teaches a downward nozzle type vacuum evaporation source 10 (a coating source for a coating plant) (abstract, paragraph 0010). Hwang1 teaches the coating source comprises a crucible 2 for vaporizing source material 11, and nozzle openings for vaporized coating material (openings on crucible support 15) (paragraphs 0028-0032, figures 2-3). Hwang1 teaches the coating source further comprises a first heating source for heating the crucible and the coating material (see heating elements 14 on the upper side of the coating source 10 heating the crucible and the coating material, see annotated figure 2 below, paragraphs 0033). Hwang1 teaches a second heating source for heating the at least one outlet opening (see heating elements 14 facing the opening of the coating source 10, see annotated figure 2 below, paragraphs 0033), wherein such heating elements are disposed opposite the at least one outlet opening. Hwang1 teaches the crucible is closed on the upper side by the plates 16, 17 and 18 (paragraphs 0035, figure 2), which reads on the limitation of lid. Hwange1 teaches the second heating source is arranged outside of the closed crucible (see annotated figure 2 below, paragraph 0033). Hwang1 teaches the at least one outlet opening is arranged on a first lower side of the crucible (see support 15 on annotated figure 2 below) and the lid closes a second, opposite side of the crucible (see plates 16, 17 and 18 on figure 2). Hwang1 teaches the crucible forms a guide portion through which the vaporized coating material is guided to the at least one outlet opening (see annotated figure 2 below, the vertical portions next to the crucible 12 and above the opening on the support 15). Hwang1 teaches the second heating elements 14 are adapted to heat the guided portion (see the heaters 14 on the vertical sides of the source 10, see annotated figure 2 below). While Hwang1 does not explicitly teach the first and second heating source are disposed entirely over the second, opposite side of the crucible, or the outlet opening is arranged in a center of the crucible. However, rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (see MPEP 2144.04 VI). Applicant has not provided evidence to support that the particular arrangements of the first and second IR radiation sources (entirely on the second, opposite side of the crucible) and the outlet opening (in the center of the crucible) provide new and unexpected result. In this case, Hwang1 further teaches the shape of the evaporation source device can be modified according to the shape of the substrate and the environment of use (paragraph 0047) and the heating elements are provided to induce the evaporation of the source material and heating the evaporation path in the sealed environment (paragraphs 0022-0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the first and second heating sources so that they are disposed entirely over the second, opposite side of the crucible in light of the teaching of Hwang1, and the outlet opening in a center of the crucible, as long as the heating sources can perform the function of inducing the evaporation of the source material and heating the evaporation path (for example, when the height dimension of the coating source is smaller than the width dimension so the first and second heating sources are only required to be on the second, opposite side of the crucible to heat the coating material and guide portion; or using the higher heating capacity heating sources).
PNG
media_image1.png
784
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hwang1 does not explicitly teach the heating source (including the second heating source) is IR radiation heater/source, and the lid is at least semi-transparent for the IR radiation of the IR radiation sources (including the second IR radiation sources); and the outlet opening is arranged in a center of the crucible. Hwang2 teaches a top-down type evaporation source (abstract). Hwang2 teaches the heating element is infrared (IR) heater (paragraph 0022). Hwang2 teaches the crucible 22/20 is closed by a lid 21 and can be separated for refilling the coating material (paragraph 0021), wherein the lid 21 is arranged between the crucible22/20 and the first and second heating sources 30 (see figures 2 and 4, wherein the heating element 30 is outside of the lid 21, which is part of the crucible 20, paragraphs 0021-0022). In addition, Hwang2 teaches at least one outlet opening is arranged in a center of the crucible, wherein the gas is ejected in the center of the crucible (see figures 2 and 4, paragraph 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the IR heater (including as the second heating source) with the lid being arranged between the crucible and heating sources, and arrange the at least one outlet opening in the center of the crucible as suggested by Hwang2 in the evaporation source as disclosed by Hwang1 because Hwang2 teaches such heating element is suitable for the top down type evaporation source for mass production of organic devices, which is easy to fill coating material and does not cause solidification of the nozzle portion (paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0022). Since Hwang1 teaches the heating elements (first and second heating sources) are set to be separately controlled to allow the source material to be heated to the most suitable temperature according the evaporation path (paragraph 0033), the combination of Hwang1 and Hwang 2 teaches the first heating and second heating sources being arranged outside lid with the opening in the center (see annotated figure 4 of Hwang2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
617
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hwang1 in view of Hwang2 does not explicitly teach the lid is at least semi-transparent for the IR radiation of the IR radiation sources (including the second IR radiation sources). However, Kamikawa teaches a crucible device of evaporation material in a vacuum vapor deposition device (abstract). Kamikawa teaches the heating source is an infrared heater 21, and a heating wave (IR) transmission element 22 element is arranged between the infrared heater 21 and the evaporation material M in the crucible (abstract, paragraphs 0014-0017). Since the lid is arranged in between the IR heater and the evaporation material in the crucible in Hwang1 in view of Hwang2, it would be obvious to use the same heating wave transmission material as the lid in light of teaching of Kamikawa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the IR wave transmission material as the lid as suggested by Kamikawa in the evaporation source as disclosed by Hwang1 in view of Hwang2 because Kamikawa teaches such transmission material allow transmission of the infrared ray so the heating element can properly heat the deposition material which is vaporized of sublimated by using the heating wave (IR wave) (paragraphs 0014-0017).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang1 teaches the first IR radiation sources (Hwang2 teaches the first heating element is also IR radiation sources) are arranged outside the closed crucible (see figure 2). Hwang2 also teaches the first IR radiation sources are arranged outside of the closed crucible. Kamikawa teaches the lid is at least semi-transparent for the IR radiation of the first IR radiation sources.
Regarding claim 6, Hwang2 teaches the crucible 22 is closed by a lid 21 and can be separated for refilling the coating material (closable opening) (paragraph 0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lid with closable opening as suggested by Hwang2 in the evaporation source as disclosed by Hwang1 because Hwang2 teaches lid allow the coating material to be refilled in the crucible (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang1 teaches of the heating elements (first and second heating sources) are set to be separately controlled to allow the source material to be heated to the most suitable temperature according the evaporation path (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 10, Hwang1 teaches a second heating source 14 (on the bottom of the source 10) is adapted to specifically and selectively heat the at least one outlet opening (see figure 2).
Regarding clam 13, Hwang1 in view of Hwang2 does not explicitly teaches the inner cross portion of the guide portion is tapered towards the at least one outlet opening. However, it is well settled that the configuration of a claimed feature was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature (inner cross portion of the guided portion is tapered towards the outlet opening) was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the configuration of inner cross portion of the guide portion to tapered towards the outlet opening in light of the teaching of Hwang1 in view of Hwang2.
Regarding claim 16, Hwang1 teaches an addition heater 14 is arranged in the region around the outlet opening (see bottom heater in the source 10, see figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Hwang1 teaches the opening is a dot shaped or plurality of dot shaped or slit shaped opening or plurality of slit shaped openings (see figure 3, paragraphs 0039-0041).
Regarding claim 24, Hwang1 in view of Hwang2 and Kamikawa teaches the lid is intended to transmit the IR, and it is known that IR wavelength is 700nm-1mm, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the transmission rate of the lid to IR to yield desired heating of the deposition material to vaporize by using the heating wave (IR wave) (paragraphs 0014-0017). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang1 (KR20100120420) in view of Hwang2 (KR20080095127) and Kamikawa (CN102277557) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 13, 16, 18 and 24 above, and further in view of Witzman (US20010011524).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang1 in view of Hwang2 and Kamikawa teaches all limitations of instant claim, except the guide portion comprises a layer of poorly thermally conductive material. However, Witzman teaches a linear aperture deposition apparatus for coating substrates with evaporated coating materials (abstract). Witzman teaches the apparatus comprising a crucible for containing the source material (paragraph 0064) and discloses a heating shield 86 is surrounds the apparatus, including the area near the substrate (see figure 3b) to prevent excess heating of the substrate (paragraphs 0065 and 0074), wherein an insulating material 88 of fibrous alumina board or carbon felt composite are used, which both have the thermal conductivity of less than 10/mK. (paragraph 0074). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an insulated shield on crucible on the surface near the substrate as suggested by Witzman in the evaporation source as disclosed by Hwang1 because Hwang2 and Kamikawa (which includes the guided portion in Hwang1’s coating source) because Witzman teaches such material can prevent excess heating of the substrate (paragraphs 0065-0074).
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang1 (KR20100120420) in view of Hwang2 (KR20080095127) and Kamikawa (CN102277557) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 13, 16, 18 and 24 above, and further in view of Kawashima (JP2002146516).
Regarding claim 12, Hwang1 in view of Hwang2 and Kamikawa teaches all limitations of this claim, except the IR radiation reflecting material. However, Kawashima teaches a vapor deposition apparatus (abstract). Kawashima an infrared reflecting mirror 4 is arranged between the crucible 2 and the substrate support 6 to reflect the IR to efficiently heat the crucible (paragraphs 0009 and 0018, figure 1), and it is known that IR wavelength is 700nm-1mm, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the refection amount of the reflection mirror to yield desired efficiency of heating of the crucible. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the IR reflector to arrange between the source/crucible/heater and the substrate as suggested by Kawashima in the coating source as disclosed by Hwang1 because Hwang2 in view of Kamikawa because Kawashima teaches aches such reflector facilitate to heating the material inside of the source (including the crucible) efficiently (paragraphs 0009 and 0018).
Regarding claim 14, Hwang1 in view of Hwang2 and Kamikawa teaches all limitations of this claim, except the IR radiation reflecting material (a shield). However, Kawashima teaches a vapor deposition apparatus (abstract). Kawashima an infrared reflecting mirror 4 (IR radiation shield) is arranged between the crucible 2 and the substrate support 6 to reflect the IR to efficiently heat the crucible (a shield in front of the outlet) (paragraphs 0009 and 0018, figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the IR reflector (a shield against IR radiation) to arrange between the source/crucible/heater (in front of the outlet opening) and the substrate as suggested by Kawashima in the coating source as disclosed by Hwang1 because Hwang2 in view of Kamikawa because Kawashima teaches aches such reflector facilitate to heating the material inside of the source (including the crucible) efficiently (paragraphs 0009 and 0018).
Regarding claim 15, Hwang1 in view of Hwang2 and Kamikawa teaches all limitations of this claim, except the IR radiation reflecting material (a shield). However, Kawashima teaches a vapor deposition apparatus (abstract). Kawashima an infrared reflecting mirror 4 (IR radiation shield) is arranged between the crucible 2 and the substrate support 6 to reflect the IR to efficiently heat the crucible ( a shield against heat conduction and/or IR radiation in a region around the at least one outlet opening) (paragraphs 0009 and 0018, figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the IR reflector (a shield against heat conduction and/or IR radiation) to arrange between the source/crucible/heater (in the region around the outlet opening) and the substrate as suggested by Kawashima in the coating source as disclosed by Hwang1 because Hwang2 in view of Kamikawa because Kawashima teaches such reflector facilitate to heating the material inside of the source (including the crucible) efficiently (paragraphs 0009 and 0018).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang1 (KR20100120420) in view of Hwang2 (KR20080095127) and Kamikawa (CN102277557) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 13, 16, 18 and 24 above, and further in view of Hwang3 (KR20110091087).
Regarding claim 17, Hwang1 in view of Hwang2 and Kamikawa teaches all limitations of this claim, except the coating material to be vaporized has a vaporization temperature of at most 1000ºC. However, Hwang3 teaches top-down vacuum evaporation source apparatus (abstract), similar to Hwang1, and discloses Se is a common material to be deposited by this type of apparatus (paragraph 0003), wherein Se has a vaporization temperature of less than 1000ºC. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use deposit Se in the top down vacuum evaporation source as suggested by Hwang3 in the coating source as disclosed by Hwang1 because Hwang2 in view of Kamikawa because Hwang3 teaches Se is a common material to be deposited in this type of apparatus (paragraph 0003.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Hwang1 does not disclose crucible wherein the at least one outlet opening is arranged in the center as recited in claim 1, and changing the basic arrangement of outlet opening and material reservoir of Hwang1 while maintaining the arrangement of the heating elements of Hwang1 would contradict the fundamental principle outlined by Hwang1.
Hwang1 does not teach the crucible is closed by a semi-transparent lid.
Hwang1 (or in view of Hwang2) does not teach the heating elements disposed entirely over the second, opposite side of the crucible as recited in claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
As discussed in the rejection above, rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (see MPEP 2144.04 VI). Applicant has not provided evidence to support that the particular arrangements the outlet opening (in the center of the crucible) provide new and unexpected result. In this case, Hwang1 further teaches the shape of the evaporation source device can be modified according to the shape of the substrate and the environment of use (paragraph 0047) and the heating elements are provided to induce the evaporation of the source material and heating the evaporation path in the sealed environment (paragraphs 0022-0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the outlet opening in the center of the crucible, as long as the heating sources can perform the function of inducing the evaporation of the source material and heating the evaporation path. Particularly, the Hwang1 teaches the optimized evaporation is achieved by sealing the evaporation source device and discharge the source material to the outside though the nozzle shaped opening by adjusting the temperature of the heating elements (paragraphs 0022-0023) (fundamental principle), and the shape of the evaporation source device can be modified according to the shape of the substrate and the environment of use (paragraph 0047), thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized rearrangement of the nozzle to the center of the crucible (which is considered as part of changing the shape of the evaporation source device) does not contradict the fundamental principle of Hwang1 as long as the temperature of the heating elements are adjusted for the proper evaporation of the material in the sealed evaporation source. Hwang1 does not expressively disclose the arrangement in the examples, wherein the outlet openings on the bottom at or near the outer circumference of the crucible, is required for the optimized heating/evaporation. In addition, Hwang2 also teaches to arrange the outlet in the center of the crucible in the top-down nozzle type vacuum evaporation source device (see rejection above).
Such limitations are disclosed by Hwang2 (the lid being disposed between the crucible and the IR radiation sources) and Kamikawa (the lid is at least semi-transparent for the IR radiation of the IR radiation sources). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
While Hwang1 does not explicitly teach the first and second heating source are disposed entirely over the second, opposite side of the crucible. However, rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (see MPEP 2144.04 VI). Applicant has not provided evidence to support that the particular arrangements of the first and second IR radiation sources (entirely on the second, opposite side of the crucible) provides new and unexpected result. In this case, Hwang1 further teaches the shape of the evaporation source device can be modified according to the shape of the substrate and the environment of use (paragraph 0047) and the heating elements are provided to induce the evaporation of the source material and heating the evaporation path in the sealed environment (paragraphs 0022-0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the first and second heating sources so that they are disposed entirely over the second, opposite side of the crucible in light of the teaching of Hwang1, as long as the heating sources can perform the function of inducing the evaporation of the source material and heating the evaporation path (for example, when the height dimension of the coating source is smaller than the width dimension so the first and second heating sources are only required to be on the second, opposite side of the crucible to heat the coating material and guide portion; or using the higher heating capacity heating sources). Regarding the arguments of Hwang2 teaches the heating wires which extend around the three sides of the crucible, thus does not teach the limitation of “deposed entirely over the second, opposite side of the crucible with the lid…”. Such limitation is addressed by Hwang1 above, and the combination of Hwang1, Hwang2 and Kamikawa teaches all the limitations of the claim. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
